I still think that coach Lavin is the right man for the job!

Quote from: we are sju on January 17, 2013, 10:24:11 AM

I was only making a point that good execution makes the gameplan look a lot better.  A gameplan that there was nothing wrong with from the start.  Guess this stuff is over your head though...

No, you are just reinforcing Fun's point with this post. So basically you are saying that if the players don't execute it is their fault becuasr in your expert opinion the game plan was solid. However when we win Lavin outcoached the other coach.

Huh?  No, I just said that people harp on Lavin not being able to coach every game, yet when we win with a solid gameplan, nobody even mentions it.  Btw, the players are the ones that always win or lose the games.  That's who is on the court.  Certainly coaching has its role.  Me saying that game coaching is overrated has nothing to do with our gameplan entering this game which was to stop their 3-point shooting.  A solid gameplan that worked. 

It almost always comes down to execution by the players.  Like I said, coaching has its role.  It's just that the expert analysis of most on these boards only comes out in losses yet nobody comments when we win. 

You don't get credit for being a good coach when you're 10-7, and 2-3.
When we are 16-8, and on the bubble, he'll get credit. Right now, he has an uphill battle.
Some of that is his fault. Some of it isn't.

Quote from: MCNPA on January 17, 2013, 10:35:04 AM

Quote from: we are sju on January 17, 2013, 10:24:11 AM

I was only making a point that good execution makes the gameplan look a lot better.  A gameplan that there was nothing wrong with from the start.  Guess this stuff is over your head though...

No, you are just reinforcing Fun's point with this post. So basically you are saying that if the players don't execute it is their fault becuasr in your expert opinion the game plan was solid. However when we win Lavin outcoached the other coach.

Huh?  No, I just said that people harp on Lavin not being able to coach every game, yet when we win with a solid gameplan, nobody even mentions it.  Btw, the players are the ones that always win or lose the games.  That's who is on the court.  Certainly coaching has its role.  Me saying that game coaching is overrated has nothing to do with our gameplan entering this game which was to stop their 3-point shooting.  A solid gameplan that worked. 

It almost always comes down to execution by the players.  Like I said, coaching has its role.  It's just that the expert analysis of most on these boards only comes out in losses yet nobody comments when we win. 

You don't get credit for being a good coach when you're 10-7, and 2-3.
When we are 16-8, and on the bubble, he'll get credit. Right now, he has an uphill battle.
Some of that is his fault. Some of it isn't.

I guess you don't see how silly that comment is.  You're saying he's only as good as his current record yet in a few weeks he might be a fantastic coach or a bad one?  Isn't his body of work overall a better picture of whether he's a good coach?

You don't get credit for being a good coach when you're 10-7, and 2-3.
When we are 16-8, and on the bubble, he'll get credit. Right now, he has an uphill battle.
Some of that is his fault. Some of it isn't.

Fair analysis, in that though I find myself disagreeing with a lot of the stuff Lavin does however if he was 16-8 or whatever what could I or anyone else really say.

I guess you don't see how silly that comment is.  You're saying he's only as good as his current record yet in a few weeks he might be a fantastic coach or a bad one?  Isn't his body of work overall a better picture of whether he's a good coach?

Those criticisms were there at UCLA-see Davis, Baron. Poison's point is the way for him to quiet those grumblings is to win! Otherwise, "you are what your record says you are!"

I guess you don't see how silly that comment is.  You're saying he's only as good as his current record yet in a few weeks he might be a fantastic coach or a bad one?  Isn't his body of work overall a better picture of whether he's a good coach?

Those criticisms were there at UCLA-see Davis, Baron. Poison's point is the way for him to quiet those grumblings is to win! Otherwise, "you are what your record says you are!"

I think a good coach makes a big difference at the college level.  See, for example, Brad Stevens at Butler. 

Going by the body of work to date, I would give Lavin a C- as a grade.
Wins over Cinci and ND are outweighed by losses to Murray State, Baylor, San Fran, UNCA, Nova and Rutgers.

Going by the body of work to date, I would give Lavin a C- as a grade.
Wins over Cinci and ND are outweighed by losses to Murray State, Baylor, San Fran, UNCA, Nova and Rutgers.

His body of work is not half of one season. He has had only 2 losing seasons in a career, one of which was last year when he was out with cancer.   Again, half a season with a team full of freshmen and sophs is not his body of work.  Not even close.

Quote from: MCNPA on January 17, 2013, 10:35:04 AM

Quote from: we are sju on January 17, 2013, 10:24:11 AM

I was only making a point that good execution makes the gameplan look a lot better.  A gameplan that there was nothing wrong with from the start.  Guess this stuff is over your head though...

No, you are just reinforcing Fun's point with this post. So basically you are saying that if the players don't execute it is their fault becuasr in your expert opinion the game plan was solid. However when we win Lavin outcoached the other coach.

Huh?  No, I just said that people harp on Lavin not being able to coach every game, yet when we win with a solid gameplan, nobody even mentions it.  Btw, the players are the ones that always win or lose the games.  That's who is on the court.  Certainly coaching has its role.  Me saying that game coaching is overrated has nothing to do with our gameplan entering this game which was to stop their 3-point shooting.  A solid gameplan that worked. 

It almost always comes down to execution by the players.  Like I said, coaching has its role.  It's just that the expert analysis of most on these boards only comes out in losses yet nobody comments when we win. 

You don't get credit for being a good coach when you're 10-7, and 2-3.
When we are 16-8, and on the bubble, he'll get credit. Right now, he has an uphill battle.
Some of that is his fault. Some of it isn't.

Well said Poison. Too easy for folks to be "homers". You can still be a avid fan and be objective.

I have a question: Why at the end of the Rutgers game is DLo taking a 3 pointer, when we are down one, and he's been successful at drawing contact the entire game? What was the play that Lavin called there? Was there a play?

I have a question: Why at the end of the Rutgers game is DLo taking a 3 pointer, when we are down one, and he's been successful at drawing contact the entire game? What was the play that Lavin called there? Was there a play?




Was probably an ISO for Harrison and that was Harrison's call. I don't blame him for that, and I really didn't have an issue with the shot. He had a good look. Almost same shot he hit against ND, just other wing.

Lavin's stubborness with the zone, our lack of movement on offense(weave doesn't count), his rotations, sub patterns and absolute idiocy of playing Greene at point would be my issues.

I have a question: Why at the end of the Rutgers game is DLo taking a 3 pointer, when we are down one, and he's been successful at drawing contact the entire game? What was the play that Lavin called there? Was there a play?




Was probably an ISO for Harrison and that was Harrison's call. I don't blame him for that, and I really didn't have an issue with the shot. He had a good look. Almost same shot he hit against ND, just other wing.

Lavin's stubborness with the zone, our lack of movement on offense(weave doesn't count), his rotations, sub patterns and absolute idiocy of playing Greene at point would be my issues.

Concur fully with your core issues. Nice we won, but perplexed by those items all season, especially offensive movement and rotations.

Idiocy of playing Greene at the point??  We only got Branch a few games ago?  Who else was going to play there?  Greene has been our Pg for a season and a half.  Ever think he wanted to bring Branch along over a few games until he was comfortable and without killing Phil's morale totally. Just benching Greene and handing all the PG duties to branch would have been idiocy.  I think Branch should have played a bit more In RU and Georgetown games but wasn't he also having vision problems after being poked in the eye and laser surgery.

Our lack of motion on offense is something that the players have to grasp and execute.  There is plenty of moton built into the motion offense.  Player's standing around waiting for Harrison to score is not part of it.  We saw plenty of motion in the Notre Dame game. 

As far as substitutions go, I don't really have a problem with them.  We're trying to figure out best lineups in the first half of the season and the important players got most of the time.  Again, these criticisms are really nonspecific and broad. 

I do agree that it was time to limit how much we use the matchup zone because players were not grasping it and not anticipating well enough to make their slides.  The zone works but our kids were just not getting it.   

I would rather have Harrison or Pointer run the point than Greene. And before you debunk that, your hero floated those names out there himself. And if you are still not happy with those possibilities, then whose fault is it that Nuri didn't work out and there were no adequate replacements?

You are ok with rotations and sub patterns? Watch Gtown game and tell me the reasoning behind Felix coming in and going out every 1.2 seconds? Or taking out Harrison down 24-8, then putting him back in for Obepka while we were on D? Those are just recent examples fresh in my mind.

As far as our "motion" offense having no motion, you are saying Lavin has no control over the players standing around? That is a pretty damning comment! Means they are tuning him out, which there was evidence of in the Gtown game. If your kids think it is a good idea to start juggling knives, would you say I don't condone this, but I am powerless to stop it?

I would rather have Harrison or Pointer run the point than Greene. And before you debunk that, your hero floated those names out there himself. And if you are still not happy with those possibilities, then whose fault is it that Nuri didn't work out and there were no adequate replacements?

You are ok with rotations and sub patterns? Watch Gtown game and tell me the reasoning behind Felix coming in and going out every 1.2 seconds? Or taking out Harrison down 24-8, then putting him back in for Obepka while we were on D? Those are just recent examples fresh in my mind.

As far as our "motion" offense having no motion, you are saying Lavin has no control over the players standing around? That is a pretty damning comment! Means they are tuning him out, which there was evidence of in the Gtown game. If your kids think it is a good idea to start juggling knives, would you say I don't condone this, but I am powerless to stop it?

Watched the MD - NC State game last night. Mark Turgeon mentioned at the end of the first half and end of the game interviews, that they had set out of bound plays and offensive sets that his kids just wouldn't execute. He said they are young and still rely on their athletic abilities much of the time. I don't know if that is an excuse all coaches use or is it a reality. I know coaching business owners and their management teams I experience this all the time. Nice having senior people to help along the way.

Why does everybody insist that Lavin needs and "X's and O's guy" on the sidelines with him now?  I don't see any glaring issues with what is being run out there.  It's not always being run to perfection, but that is pretty standard with a young team with lots of new pieces and a few missing pieces.

Too many people here think they know better how everything should be run.  I think it's pretty comical actually.  Sure we stunk a few games.  Then we out coach and outplay a very well-coached Notre Dame team and nobody notices.  Lavin is really only in is second year with his second recruiting class here.  Since being hired, he has always been "up front" about this team being built to reach our goals in year 4-5.  We are still just building this program. 

Certainly we had seem bad losses this year, but not because the team is incapable.  Lots of maddening issues that tend to plague young teams.  As much as people hate the oft-referred "young" excuse, it must be realized that it is the truth.  Lavin certainly needs to recruit a few more pieces for us to be a top tier team, but I think we are on the right track.

I just think it gets pretty obnoxious to put out s list saying Lavin is the right guy for the job but needs to hire: a X's and O's guy, a talent evaluator, different style of players etc



Baron Davis and every UCLA fan not named Crgreen does not endorse this post!

That's because they're all entitled, whiny crybabies spoiled by years and years of Wooden/Alcindor/Walton.  6 consecutive Ncaa's, 4 sweet sixteens and an elite 8 not good enough for em in 7 years of coaching?  Hollywood should tell all the Bruin fans and Baron Davis to bow down and kiss his prostate.  But alas he has too much class for that.

Sorry Cr.

Quote from: we are sju on January 17, 2013, 09:50:16 AM

Why does everybody insist that Lavin needs and "X's and O's guy" on the sidelines with him now?  I don't see any glaring issues with what is being run out there.  It's not always being run to perfection, but that is pretty standard with a young team with lots of new pieces and a few missing pieces.

Too many people here think they know better how everything should be run.  I think it's pretty comical actually.  Sure we stunk a few games.  Then we out coach and outplay a very well-coached Notre Dame team and nobody notices.  Lavin is really only in is second year with his second recruiting class here.  Since being hired, he has always been "up front" about this team being built to reach our goals in year 4-5.  We are still just building this program. 

Certainly we had seem bad losses this year, but not because the team is incapable.  Lots of maddening issues that tend to plague young teams.  As much as people hate the oft-referred "young" excuse, it must be realized that it is the truth.  Lavin certainly needs to recruit a few more pieces for us to be a top tier team, but I think we are on the right track.

I just think it gets pretty obnoxious to put out s list saying Lavin is the right guy for the job but needs to hire: a X's and O's guy, a talent evaluator, different style of players etc



Baron Davis and every UCLA fan not named Crgreen does not endorse this post!

That's because they're all entitled, whiny crybabies spoiled by years and years of Wooden/Alcindor/Walton.  6 consecutive Ncaa's, 4 sweet sixteens and an elite 8 not good enough for em in 7 years of coaching?  Hollywood should tell all the Bruin fans and Baron Davis to bow down and kiss his prostate.  But alas he has too much class for that.

Sorry Cr.

No, its because Lavins m.o. is to underperform with the level of talent he has. At UCLA he consistently had final-4 talent yet was only a Sweet 16 coach with mediocre records and rankings.
He was young then and didnt understand the need for solid assistants.
He showed that he had matured when he brought Dunlap on board to begin his tenure here. Dunlap left on short notice this offseason and I think Lavin is a smart enough guy to realize he needs to find a replacement for what Dunlap brought to the staff in order for the team to reach its full potential.

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 17, 2013, 01:10:56 PM

Quote from: we are sju on January 17, 2013, 09:50:16 AM

Why does everybody insist that Lavin needs and "X's and O's guy" on the sidelines with him now?  I don't see any glaring issues with what is being run out there.  It's not always being run to perfection, but that is pretty standard with a young team with lots of new pieces and a few missing pieces.

Too many people here think they know better how everything should be run.  I think it's pretty comical actually.  Sure we stunk a few games.  Then we out coach and outplay a very well-coached Notre Dame team and nobody notices.  Lavin is really only in is second year with his second recruiting class here.  Since being hired, he has always been "up front" about this team being built to reach our goals in year 4-5.  We are still just building this program. 

Certainly we had seem bad losses this year, but not because the team is incapable.  Lots of maddening issues that tend to plague young teams.  As much as people hate the oft-referred "young" excuse, it must be realized that it is the truth.  Lavin certainly needs to recruit a few more pieces for us to be a top tier team, but I think we are on the right track.

I just think it gets pretty obnoxious to put out s list saying Lavin is the right guy for the job but needs to hire: a X's and O's guy, a talent evaluator, different style of players etc



Baron Davis and every UCLA fan not named Crgreen does not endorse this post!

That's because they're all entitled, whiny crybabies spoiled by years and years of Wooden/Alcindor/Walton.  6 consecutive Ncaa's, 4 sweet sixteens and an elite 8 not good enough for em in 7 years of coaching?  Hollywood should tell all the Bruin fans and Baron Davis to bow down and kiss his prostate.  But alas he has too much class for that.

Sorry Cr.

No, its because Lavins m.o. is to underperform with the level of talent he has. At UCLA he consistently had final-4 talent yet was only a Sweet 16 coach with mediocre records and rankings.
He was young then and didnt understand the need for solid assistants.
He showed that he had matured when he brought Dunlap on board to begin his tenure here. Dunlap left on short notice this offseason and I think Lavin is a smart enough guy to realize he needs to find a replacement for what Dunlap brought to the staff in order for the team to reach its full potential.

You mean like Roy Williams totally underpformed at Kansas or how Boeheim underperformed at Syracuse?  Boeheim didn't get to his first Final 4 for almost 3 decades.  "Lavin's M.O." was artificially inflated by overzealous UCLA fans.

Williams' Kansas record not to be confused with Lavin.

Williams had Kansas in the AP Top 25 in 242 of 268 weekly polls. Kansas reached the No. 1 ranking in the country in six different seasons and was ranked at least No. 2 in the nation in 11 of the 15 seasons.
Under Williams, the team had several deep runs in the NCAA Tournament, making it to four Final Fours and appearing in the national championship game in both 1991 and 2003, losing both, to Duke and Syracuse respectively. Amidst the tournament successes, there were plenty of woes. The 1996–97 team was said by many to be one of the greatest teams in history, featuring future NBA players such as Paul Pierce, Jacque Vaughn, Raef LaFrentz, and Scot Pollard. Entering the NCAA Tournament with Pollard (foot stress fracture) and starting shooting guard (later Kansas and UNC assistant coach, and current head coach at Alabama-Birmingham) Jerod Haase (broken wrist) trying to play with injuries, the team was upset in the Sweet Sixteen by the eventual champion, Arizona Wildcats.[15]

Roy was at Kansas a lot longer to build that program.  He was still known at the time as a guy underachieving.  I'm pretty sure Lavin would have had a NC if Baron didn't blow out his knee and we'd never be having this conversation.  My real point was that some of these guys got bad reps for no reason based in inflated expectations.  Ucla fired Lavin who went to or past the sweet 16 every year.  Only reason he didn't go further were injuries and of course a few good teams that Lavin had to play against.  As we all know, lots f things can happen the tournament and just because Lavin or any coach has top talent. Doesn't guarantee a final 4 or better every year.

Original post above was directed at Lavin's NCAA success. Williams' four final fours at Kansas eclipses Lavin's one final eight appearance period. Like and value Lavin, but this is no contest.